Gordon Bashing

[Milton]

When I look around I see no Left.

No Maoists, Revisionists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Communists. All these terms pertain to various economic theories that propose government means of controlling production.

Socialism, in a generic sense.

But all of these different types will state that their belief is the true form of socialism.

So the real question is how can the left have changed so radically overnight? From Old Labour to New Labour.

I'm not talking about the lies they tell to get elected, but their real core beliefs.

The Left are/have become Collectivists.

A generic term, useful because it does not define a systematic ideology. It applies in equal measure to the left and the right, referring to the centralising of power in the hands of a controlling beaurocracy.

In that regard there is no difference between the right and the left.

[Freedom Of Speech scares Government's. The Internet Scares Governments.]

If you study subsequent acts of parliament over the centuries, you will see a common recurring theme.

These acts exist to benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of the masses.

That is the primary goal of Parliament and it has been for centuries.

Which is why we have seen Intense authoritarian efforts to maintain cohesion leading to an ever increasing strain on the population.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the Last 50 years, leading Labour Party thinkers, have argued that, for a true Socialist state to arrive, they must use the Capitalist system, against itself.

Which seems to be what they have done/ what has occured.

Paradoxically, our two party 'democratic' system has been more damaging to us than a dictatorship would have been.

I think this is why Gordon Brown seems so unrepentant. He does'nt give a shit about you or I.

He's only interested in the long game.

You and I are just acceptable collateral damage on the way to his socialist Utopia, which, cannot exist, and would probably be some despotic orwellian techno nightmare for the average citizen.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Milton

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

And what happens when private and public can't borrow anymore?

Default or Printy Printy.

that ignores corporate debt which was doing most of the the borrowing since about 1990 (saved the reset bust happening then) via something called the technology boom considering how many on here are IT bods i find it strange how they ignore the tech boom and massive malinvestment of debt and the implications of crashing GDP then by not having the debt expanded somewhere else (the govt spending reducing and then rising is little to do with tory policy and everything to do with the tech boom bust and corporate debt taxes generated), it would have started going up in 1997 had the tech bust happened around then) that bust was only solved via the mortgage boom,which has also bust and is now only being solved via the ongoing state bust, the debt has still been expanding the whole time, the problem is noone blue red green or yellow is prepared to accept the bust and rightly so when you can see on here or the guardian all people care about blaming is who it is happening under that doesnt wear their colour tie rather than caring if there is a fundamental problem with the system.

So when asked would the tories have done the same id assume they wouldnt have created such an insane imbalance in Public sector based on previous behaviour so debt may have been 10% less, but im absolutely confident theyd have stood by and let the private sector load up with debt giving the generated taxes back to their mates mostly, after all they set off this mortgage debt expansion to get the debt of the their own books in the first place. Its sort of confirmed by the coalition, their main goal and projections require debt expansion, they want to play the 80s trick of moving it back to the private sector, without realising that zirp is telling anyone who will listen that the private sector is still loaded up and doesnt want /cant take anymore. They could alternatively collapse the debt and system today much as Gordon could have in 2000 but they clearly wont, they will simply hope like gordon the sht doesnt hit the fan on their watch by expanding it further.

The problem is fundamentally structural both monetarily and economically rather than political and the service (read private debt expanding and servicing) based economy certainly wasnt introduced 10 years ago

Edited July 30, 2011 by Mary Cassatt

[Pytyr]

that ignores corporate debt which was doing most of the the borrowing since about 1990 (saved the reset bust happening then) via something called the technology boom considering how many on here are IT bods i find it strange how they ignore the tech boom and massive malinvestment of debt and the implications of crashing GDP then by not having the debt expanded somewhere else (the govt spending reducing and then rising is little to do with tory policy and everything to do with the tech boom and corporate debt taxes generated, it would have started going up in 1997 had the tech bust happened around then) that bust only being solved via the mortgage boom,which has also bust and is now only being solved via the ongoing state bust, the debt has still been expanding the whole time, the problem is noone blue red green or yellow is prepared to accept the bust and rightly so when you can see on here or the guardian all people care about blaming is who it is happening under that doesnt wear their colour tie rather than caring if there is a fundamental problem with the system.

So when asked would the tories have done the same id assume they wouldnt have created such an insane imbalance in Public sector based on previous behaviour, but im absolutely confident theyd have stood by and let the private sector load up with debt giving the generated taxes back to their mates mostly, after all they set off this mortgage debt expansion to get the debt of the their own books in the first place. Its sort of confirmed by the coalition, there main goal and projections require debt expansion, they want to play the 80s trick of moving it back to the private sector, without realising that zirp is telling anyone who will listen that the private sector is still loaded up and doesnt want /cant take anymore. They could alternatively collapse the debt and system today much as Gordon could have in 2000 but they clearly wont, they will simply hope like gordon the sht doesnt hit the fan on their watch

Oh, I totally agree, the Tories would have done something bad, it's conjectural how bad it would have been.

The tech boom did at least give us something tangible, cabled streets, mobile phone networks, I'm sure the techies could point out all the bright and shiny things. Just like the railways and canals before them, lots of bad investments but somthing came out of it. What did this last boom leave us with?

Edit to add: I wish the title was something different. My juvenile sense of humour just sees a euphemism for masturbation!

Edited July 30, 2011 by Pytyr

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Oh, I totally agree, the Tories would have done something bad, it's conjectural how bad it would have been.

The tech boom did at least give us something tangible, cabled streets, mobile phone networks, I'm sure the techies could point out all the bright and shiny things. Just like the railways and canals before them, lots of bad investments but somthing came out of it. What did this last boom leave us with?

Wealthy beyond ability Company Directors, Wealthy beyond ability state jobsworths and Wealthy beyond ability MPs and aparatchiks, im sure only 1 out of those 3 would have been possibly avoided, the representative Democracy has done its job and represented those that are relevant to it

UK Republic

US Republic

Edited July 30, 2011 by Mary Cassatt

[tomandlu]

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently. There might have been marginally lower public spending, but there was not much opposition at the time. As far as I can tell they're all as corupt as each other and have not made the slightest noises about reforming the monetary system as would be required to prevent the speculation and mess that we are currently in.

Ps. Never voted labour or Tory, just making an observation.

My main gripe with new labour - apart from Iraq and the economic fvck-wittery - is that they turned politics into a total PR exercise. Yes, yes, there's always been an element of that, but Blair was 100% PR. Cameron, the hopeless twit, is just the descendent of that.*

I have no idea what the tories would have done differently - probably not much - but it's a meaningless question anyway, since, w/o blair and new labour, they would have been a different bunch of tories... the tory party was emulating and competing with blair.

* typical tories to copy labour just about the time we were all learning to hate blair...

[Blod]

Nulabour's media control was impressive. For a period it put Orwell's big brother to shame with the media touting how wonderful everything is whilst at the same time the fabric of the country was collapsing.

It's simply that the Political classes live an insulated life. When they retire and stop f...ing the country over their fat, often, index linked pensions mean that they have no incentive to get the country running well. Hence printy printy

It's highly unlikely that that will change, why would they vote to make they cushy lives harder. Just look at how little of the expenses scheme has changed.

The Iraq inquiry will be a white wash, its an expensive media exercise to deflect the public's eye from the political classes abuses of the the parliamentary system.

[Milton]

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently.

Its a mute point.

The Tories would not have set up a Tripartite system, taken power to watch inflation away from the BOE. Lack of regulation etc etc etc The Economics Affairs Committee, tasked to look into the causes of the crisis, have ruled that the Labour cabinet were to blame.

It's completely disingenuos, to blame another political party, as they 'may' have done the same.

Clearly the framework which Labour created. Which proved to be very destructive. Would not have been used by the Tories. But would we have had the same result?

Would house prices have risen by 300% in a decade under a Tory Government? How? It's unanswerable. Any answer would be Nothing but Fiction

Do you hold people responsible for their actions? I do.

And I correctly blame Labour for 12 years of policy which has led to me working for nothing. No Capital. [And other disgusting policies, like Blair's Illegal war in Iraq]

If you do not hold people responsible then what's the point of voting? According to that philosophy, it does'nt matter what any political party does.

[Although I can understand people feeling that way, as your elected official immeadiatly votes on policies which the voter has no say in, but disagree's with]

I will never vote Labour.

But The Tories, and Lib Dems have already lost my vote, in 2015, as they have had many chances to deflate the bubble and have specifically chosen policies to keep us in debt slavery.

F@@k Em All.F@@k the System.F@@k this country.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Milton

[Pytyr]

Its a mute point.

Very quiet, is it?

[Injin]

The tories would have bubbled something different, probably - but the cause is the underlying debt system.

There is no chance the natural party of bankster would go anywhere near it.

[erranta]

Actually, NO.

The debt started to increase slowly after 2001/2. It looked under control due to strong tax revenues and general GDP growth, funded in part by the rise in house prices. When the economy stuttered, and Gordon 'saved the world', then the massive rise in debt (and the cumulative effect of the annual deficits) showed from 2008.

Weren't he throwing Billions £££'s into the City to keep the bankers and the bank investors cash safe?

Then Bank owned - House renters and those 'gormless mug' millions for idiots to buy 'shares' in a house and take on all the risk and expenses at the top of the market

It was at £2.4 Trillion over 6 months ago and they have kept VERY quiet about it all since!

[mirage]

I wasn't part of the kleptocracy, but I'd say that the debt spiral started circa 2008.

Debt reduced as a percentage of GDP because there was a huge house price bubble inflating the GDP. Gordo managed to deficit spend up to and beyond the limits of this artificial boom supplement. The huge run-up in public debt following the crash was the result of having to fill the sudden gap in private debt run-up - with the simultaneous loss of its revenues.

[Tankus]

gordon bashing

?

stuff the percentages and what if ...... it just dilutes the bile ..... keep the vehemence pure , knee jerk ,and irreconcilable... ..................................................I do

[Pytyr]

Debt reduced as a percentage of GDP because there was a huge house price bubble inflating the GDP. Gordo managed to deficit spend up to and beyond the limits of this artificial boom supplement. The huge run-up in public debt following the crash was the result of having to fill the sudden gap in private debt run-up - with the simultaneous loss of its revenues.

Need.... more .... debt.... Just another few billion, I can give up any time, you know, I'm good for it....

[dragonfly]

I think it's hoping against hope that the whole financial system isn't utterly ******ed in part - and in part plain old fashioned "blue = good, red = bad" ******wittery.

It's a debt based monetary system operating at interest. Either the total amount of debt keeps going up or the lot crashes and burns. Rather like every other leader and chancellor since before churchills time, bliar, crash and badger decided to kick the can down the road. That they couldn't kick it hard enough to not be there when it stopped and needed another kicking is just how it is.

Camera-on and bungle have also opted to the "coat over head, hope it all goes away approach" - but again theres nothing unusual in this, no politician has looked at these issues with any seriousness since before the first world war. It's been increasing debt and banking favours all the way.

Might as well say it plain again for the cheap seats - no mainstream politica are ever going to fix the underlying issues. They are going to keep printing and stealing until forced away from the printer, probably by an unruly mob. Until that final collapse moment arrives it's more debt, higher taxes, higher inflation and more and more rip offs from the political class and there is nothing that can be done about it.

[/quote

The sooner you all take notice of the above and understand what has been going on under our noses, the better. Why waste your time reproducing official manipulated BS and squabbling about which party is to blame. It's all lies, lies and more damned lies. FFS wake up, it is a debt based system operating at interest - learn from it and ponder the future.

[Guest tbatst2000]

As Did Broon at some point circa 2003 or whenever. He started paying down the national debt from about 45% to about 36%. The government was again in surplus.

Yes I loathe ZANU as much as the next man, but facts is facts.

Check the ONS for details if you doubt me.

Wouldn't deny that for a moment - their policy was to stick to the Tories spending plans for 2 years after being elected after all - the point was, the spending got out of control under Labour.

[Si1]

Debt spiral? Where did that come from?

The original point Si1 was making was that that Gordon Brown changed his approach after the 2001 election. Those graphs bear this out.

Actually, NO.

The debt started to increase slowly after 2001/2. It looked under control due to strong tax revenues and general GDP growth, funded in part by the rise in house prices. When the economy stuttered, and Gordon 'saved the world', then the massive rise in debt (and the cumulative effect of the annual deficits) showed from 2008.

Debt reduced as a percentage of GDP because there was a huge house price bubble inflating the GDP. Gordo managed to deficit spend up to and beyond the limits of this artificial boom supplement. The huge run-up in public debt following the crash was the result of having to fill the sudden gap in private debt run-up - with the simultaneous loss of its revenues.

what they all said

[Tankus]

And to cap it all GB followed Keynesian economics but failed to observe the most important bit which is during boom years you save, and he didnt, he flogged teh gold at records lows and loaded the country with extremely poor value PFI contracts.

Gordon totally failed at keynesian economics , due to his political partisan ship for personal political gain at the expense off all else , Keynesian economics dictates a mixed economy—the bulk of which being in the private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector involvement , subservient to the private or wealth creative , not just save in the plenty and spend in the lean ...!

Gordon utterly blew it in his quest for votes , he has left us unbalanced with a 53/47 % public private split , this is unsustainable , and ultimately unstable . Thatcher dealt with the last IMF labour mess ...but this time ..arguabley the conditions are far worse .... It may take a zealot...... and Osborne is not it ....someone with brains and who is politically expendable after 5 years ...there is no one !

It is going to take brutality now ...or a total default down the line and utter carnage,..... laters ....personally I think we are donald ducked ,......its to late... and the blame can be laid squarely at the door of kirkcaldys village idiot

Edited July 30, 2011 by Tankus

[cabbagepatchkid]

Its a mute point.

The Tories would not have set up a Tripartite system, taken power to watch inflation away from the BOE. Lack of regulation etc etc etc The Economics Affairs Committee, tasked to look into the causes of the crisis, have ruled that the Labour cabinet were to blame.

It's completely disingenuos, to blame another political party, as they 'may' have done the same.

Clearly the framework which Labour created. Which proved to be very destructive. Would not have been used by the Tories. But would we have had the same result?

Would house prices have risen by 300% in a decade under a Tory Government? How? It's unanswerable. Any answer would be Nothing but Fiction

Do you hold people responsible for their actions? I do.

And I correctly blame Labour for 12 years of policy which has led to me working for nothing. No Capital. [And other disgusting policies, like Blair's Illegal war in Iraq]

If you do not hold people responsible then what's the point of voting? According to that philosophy, it does'nt matter what any political party does.

[Although I can understand people feeling that way, as your elected official immeadiatly votes on policies which the voter has no say in, but disagree's with]

I will never vote Labour.

But The Tories, and Lib Dems have already lost my vote, in 2015, as they have had many chances to deflate the bubble and have specifically chosen policies to keep us in debt slavery.

F@@k Em All.F@@k the System.F@@k this country.

Do Re Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

Change the record mate.

I'm sorry you feel pi$$ed off re not being able to afford a nice house. Life is unfair.

Re the bit in bold: Yes, I judge people by their actions. How many politicians uttered a word re spiraling house prices and debt expansion?

Vince Cable and precious few others.

[cabbagepatchkid]

that ignores corporate debt which was doing most of the the borrowing since about 1990 (saved the reset bust happening then) via something called the technology boom considering how many on here are IT bods i find it strange how they ignore the tech boom and massive malinvestment of debt and the implications of crashing GDP then by not having the debt expanded somewhere else (the govt spending reducing and then rising is little to do with tory policy and everything to do with the tech boom bust and corporate debt taxes generated), it would have started going up in 1997 had the tech bust happened around then) that bust was only solved via the mortgage boom,which has also bust and is now only being solved via the ongoing state bust, the debt has still been expanding the whole time, the problem is noone blue red green or yellow is prepared to accept the bust and rightly so when you can see on here or the guardian all people care about blaming is who it is happening under that doesnt wear their colour tie rather than caring if there is a fundamental problem with the system.

So when asked would the tories have done the same id assume they wouldnt have created such an insane imbalance in Public sector based on previous behaviour so debt may have been 10% less, but im absolutely confident theyd have stood by and let the private sector load up with debt giving the generated taxes back to their mates mostly, after all they set off this mortgage debt expansion to get the debt of the their own books in the first place. Its sort of confirmed by the coalition, their main goal and projections require debt expansion, they want to play the 80s trick of moving it back to the private sector, without realising that zirp is telling anyone who will listen that the private sector is still loaded up and doesnt want /cant take anymore. They could alternatively collapse the debt and system today much as Gordon could have in 2000 but they clearly wont, they will simply hope like gordon the sht doesnt hit the fan on their watch by expanding it further.

The problem is fundamentally structural both monetarily and economically rather than political and the service (read private debt expanding and servicing) based economy certainly wasnt introduced 10 years ago

+100000000000

Nail hit squarely on head.

[dragonfly]

Gordon totally failed at keynesian economics , due to his political partisan ship for personal political gain at the expense off all else , Keynesian economics dictates a mixed economy—the bulk of which being in the private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector involvement , subservient to the private or wealth creative , not just save in the plenty and spend in the lean ...!

Gordon utterly blew it in his quest for votes , he has left us unbalanced with a 53/47 % public private split , this is unsustainable , and ultimately unstable . Thatcher dealt with the last IMF labour mess ...but this time ..arguabley the conditions are far worse .... It may take a zealot...... and Osborne is not it ....someone with brains and who is politically expendable after 5 years ...there is no one !

It is going to take brutality now ...or a total default down the line and utter carnage,..... laters ....personally I think we are donald ducked ,......its to late... and the blame can be laid squarely at the door of kirkcaldys village idiot

You allow a system in which private banks create money at no cost and loan it out with interest then it makes little difference as to which village idiot (Labour or Conservative) is at the helm. We have been on this course since before Brown was born and the day of reckoning a certainty. We the voters past and present are to blame for allowing such a system. We should all be wary of the RESET.

[Milton]

Change the record mate.

I'm sorry you feel pi$ed off re not being able to afford a nice house. Life is unfair.

Re the bit in bold: Yes, I judge people by their actions. How many politicians uttered a word re spiraling house prices and debt expansion?

Vince Cable and precious few others.

I'm only just getting warmed up, as far as house prices and Labour are concerned. Too many forums to post on, not enough time. Ive only been at it for a few year's.

I've easily had over ten thousand views on various threads and forums, highlighting how Labour purposefully inflated the housing bubble. Does that upset you? It's important to let all the students know the largest debt they will take on in their lifetime is a house, and how Labour have pushed them into debt slavery.

Dont worry yourself though.

Very easy to copy and paste.

Does'nt take me long.

But it's posts like yours which really give me a bit of incentive to keep going.

Hoping to have over a hundred thousand views by 2015.

Love to Gordon.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Milton

[Byron]

Blimey. Agree with that word-for-word.

Injin has been getting rather good lately, must have changed his tablets!

Actually, I believe that he is a computer, hence Injin=engine

[cabbagepatchkid]

I'm only just getting warmed up, as far as house prices and Labour are concerned. Too many forums to post on, not enough time. Ive only been at it for a few year's.

I've easily had over ten thousand views on various threads and forums, highlighting how Labour purposefully inflated the housing bubble. Does that upset you? It's important to let all the students know the largest debt they will take on in their lifetime is a house, and how Labour have pushed them into debt slavery.

Dont worry yourself though.

Very easy to copy and paste.

Does'nt take me long.

But it's posts like yours which really give me a bit of incentive to keep going.

Hoping to have over a hundred thousand views by 2015.

Love to Gordon.

Pleased you are keeping busy by posting drivel on the internet but you may wish to consider getting out a bit more and possibly and working on your style so that you don't come across as quite such a simpleton.

I have no time for the vast majority of politicians (of any party). Various posters above have tried to explain that trying to reduce this to a party political issue is moronic.

Feel free to post a reply safe in the knowledge that I won't further prolong this exchange.

Bye.

x

[Milton]

1.] Pleased you are keeping busy by posting drivel on the internet but you may wish to consider getting out a bit more and possibly and working on your style so that you don't come across as quite such a simpleton.

2.] I have no time for the vast majority of politicians (of any party). Various posters above have tried to explain that trying to reduce this to a party political issue is moronic.

Feel free to post a reply safe in the knowledge that I won't further prolong this exchange.

Bye.

1.] Im not sure why you are so upset, with my comments. Not really bothered either. They were certainly a far greater contribution to the thread than yours were.

2.] [Obviously, as Injin and others pointed out, our system of debt is the root problem.] Yet The OP of the thread is asking if one political party would have done anything different to the other.

Or did you miss that?

Obviously you have [misread,] or not read the entire thread.....yet you end up throwing your rattle out of the pram, after you begin throwing insults about....for no apparent reason....[in my experience, a trait normally attributable, to Labour Party types, who do not like to be disagreed with, and generally believe themselves to be superior to others]

[ive never come across your good self before, but based upon first impressions, you appear to be Something of a Nobhead? ] See I can do that too.....

Is that 'sylish' enough for you?

Au Revoir....xxx

Edited July 31, 2011 by Milton

[SeenItAllBefore]

Do Re Me Me Me Me Me Me Me.

Change the record mate.

I'm sorry you feel pi$$ed off re not being able to afford a nice house. Life is unfair.

Re the bit in bold: Yes, I judge people by their actions. How many politicians uttered a word re spiraling house prices and debt expansion?

Vince Cable and precious few others.

Michael Howard did in his 2004 Budget reply speech.

But he [brown] admitted that the government would have to borrow £37bn this year - £10bn more than he predicted a year ago - and that borrowing would remain high for some years to come.

Conservative leader Michael Howard attacked Mr Brown as the "credit card chancellor" and asked "if everything is going so well, why does he have to borrow so much?" He said that if Labour was elected for a third term, tax rises were "inevitable".

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable, in place of an ill Charles Kennedy, said Mr Brown had ducked tough choices on the economy until after the next election. He said the chancellor had done nothing to address "very serious imbalances" in the economy, such as the high levels of consumer debt and the over-inflated housing market.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3518888.stm